« Why I'm glad I'm not Jewish | Main | Media Still Trying To Spin Roberts Into A Racist Bigot »

Global Warming - Putting Your Money Where Your Mouth Is

Notice the headline, both sides bet but the Guardian must think one side is gambling more than the other.

Climate change sceptics bet $10,000 on cooler world

Russian pair challenge UK expert over global warming

Two climate change sceptics, who believe the dangers of global warming are overstated, have put their money where their mouth is and bet $10,000 that the planet will cool over the next decade.

The Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev have agreed the wager with a British climate expert, James Annan.

The pair, based in Irkutsk, at the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics, believe that global temperatures are driven more by changes in the sun's activity than by the emission of greenhouse gases. They say the Earth warms and cools in response to changes in the number and size of sunspots. Most mainstream scientists dismiss the idea, but as the sun is expected to enter a less active phase over the next few decades the Russian duo are confident they will see a drop in global temperatures.

While global warming* is a myth, I would bet with the Brit on this one. That the earth has been warming as measured for the last few years is undeniable. That it will reverse itself is, in my mind, also undeniable. But betting on it in such short (planitary) terms is folly.

If the stock market has been up for 3 days, it is likely it will up tomorrow. Devoid other information, betting it will go up is the right bet even if it is a bear market. Since it is doubtful the temperature trend will turn on a dime, I'd bet with the Brits based on the short term... Give me 100 (or 500) years and I'd be on the other side.

Footnote: * Sigh- here we go again* And this is only aimed at about 5-7 people....

Defining "global warming" is not unlike defining "evolution."

Each may have a specific (and precise) meaning but (like it or not..) they are often used as catch-all phrases that encompasses many sub-theories. For those of you who abhor such linguistic encapsulation, I suggest grief therapy.

When I use "global warming" in this post, I use it as the catch all phrase that means roughly "Humans are causing the temps to rise and we're all gonna die!" Indeed when most people hear the words "global warming" that is what they think of.

Yes, there are dozens of sub-theories involved but -again- they defy the convenient linguistic encapsulation that is a prerequisite of a brief blog post.

Because I don't write 10,000 words about every various theory does not mean I am not familiar with them, nor that I don't respect your pet one. Implying that I don't mention your pet theory because I've never heard of it will result in simple deletion. Grow up and act like adults and comments will remain unfettered. Simple, ain't it?


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Global Warming - Putting Your Money Where Your Mouth Is:

» In Search Of Utopia linked with Our National Embarrassment

Comments (10)

I'll believe in global warm... (Below threshold)

I'll believe in global warming as soon as I can see one model that takes a 1' rise in sea level into account and the cooling effect of it. I've been to several international conferences and have yet to see a model that included it, much less met anyone that could give me even a ballpark figure of how much the total water surface area of the planet will increase with a 1' rise. The reason they can't tell me is because they haven't bothered to figure it out. The grant money stops as soon as you prove the theory is bullshit.

The real sure bet on climat... (Below threshold)
Lew Clark:

The real sure bet on climate is that it will change. The earth is a very dynamic place. In fact it must be to survive and maintain life. That is the silliness of the "global warming" is caused by people and will kill the planet. It gets warmer for a time then it gets cooler. An ice age followed by a much wider expanse of moist, tropical areas. The real tragedy would be if we could ever control the climate. A controlled, constant, climate would creat the doomsday scenario they predict.

The pair, based in Irkut... (Below threshold)

The pair, based in Irkutsk, at the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics, believe that global temperatures are driven more by changes in the sun's activity than by the emission of greenhouse gases...

Heh. I did this experiment (well, part of the sunspot/temperature correlation) as a Jr. High School science fair project many suns, er moons, ago. I vote with the Ruskies. ;) Apparently, we are approaching the next minima of the 11-yr cycle and would gather the Earth's temporal buffering capacity will be exceeded at the latter stages of the oncoming rise to maxima.

Time to see my bookie.

Pet peeve about "global war... (Below threshold)

Pet peeve about "global warmists", they say the Medieval Warm Period did not exist, despite the records of humans during that time period. (The records of icebergs off the coast of Ice Land is what I think of in particular.)

If you're a geek about this topic like I am may I suggest:

Also, a little eccentric, but this guy does a pretty good job of finding the errors in the MSM's own "global warming" hysteria (like the fact that the Ice Sheet in Antarctica is growing at about 1.5 m/ year:

I'm with the Rooskie's on t... (Below threshold)

I'm with the Rooskie's on this one. The Sun's output is definitely variable, and our energy use and emmissions pale in comparison. But I think that the real reason it will get colder is because oil and gas will cost so much more in the coming decade. Doesn't it just figure?

It's funny how the language... (Below threshold)

It's funny how the language about melting glaciers in the northern hemisphere gets more shrill every year about this time. July and August.

I was going to comment abou... (Below threshold)
Bill M:

I was going to comment about looking for a study relating sunspot activity and global temperatures, but AnonymousDrivel apparently has been there already.

Another thing to consider. Anybody old enough to remember the "coming Ice Age" of the 70's-early 80's (I think that was the period). The same culprits hyping Global Warming were hyping Global Cooling back then. Wonder what the sunspot cycle was doing?

Somehow, I suspect the Russians have some data giving a correlation between sunspot activity and global temperature variation. Sounds like this bet may be of the "candy from a baby" variety. Think I'll talk to my bookie!

I also agree with the Ruski... (Below threshold)

I also agree with the Ruskies/Rooskies on this issue and so do many scientists in the U.S. and elsewhere: that we are on the verge (the issues is how "verge" is defined, as in, what time frame can be anticipated) of the next Ice Age, not the next Big Meltdown.

We are entering a less active time of our sun and that in and of itself will have a cooling effect but the other thing to consider is that the Earth maintains a "wobble" in orbit around the sun, sometimes varying farther away from the sun, sometimes closer but in periods of huge amounts of years, far more than any one human population has or can experience in length. And we're appearing to also be entering one of those orbit alterations...

Thus, the Earth may be warming by whatever reason but it will lead to a colder overall surface temperatue by progression of warming (which produces a colder surface temperature after a point -- it's a process), but combined also with hte orbital changes and the sun's lesser activity and it might just mean a very cold next Ice Age.

If there's anything good about it, I'm prepared to handle and enjoy cold climates, but the issue is grim when considering the huge human populations of today on Earth and the limited fuel resources. Burn all the trees and you get an even colder climate...but it looks grim, truly it does. Not to mention implications for our food supply. Too many people, overpopulation, at least means that there are greater liklihood of a few individuals surviving serious climate change, sufficient to reproduce and raise other generations. Question is, for how long and how extreme are the changed conditions.

But, yes, in biology courses, they've been teaching for quite a while now that the anticipated outcome of our current global warming is the onset of the next Ice Age. It's just that no one can predict just how cold the next one will be. Last one had ice sheets over three miles thick over what is now Manhattan.

I have read credible studie... (Below threshold)

I have read credible studies on both sides of this issue for years and years. One conclusion I have made is that all theories are seriously flawed by lack of a sufficiently complex model. Most money and studies (by about a 10:1 ratio) are for global warming model. A common denominator is that these models usually neglect the recursive nature of the changes their models predict. That is only a minor criticism as it would be impossible to know the sum total of the effects a warming/cooling trend on the planet. Likewise, the models that predict a warming trend setting off an ice age are impossibly simplistic.

They put in a variable here and there and correct for this affect here or there and voila there it is a mathematical model that oscillates with the seasons and shows the mathematical contribution from CO2 causing the oscillations to cause the oscillations to gradually rise then the contribution from increased cloud cover caused by the warming kicks in and there is a moderating of the trend and variables here feed into variables there and finally one variable lines up with another causing a quick sudden feedback loop that takes over the major tend and bam!!! A precipitous drop in temperature =ICE AGE! OH come on! Sounds like the script to a mediocre climate hysteria movie.

Speaking of hysteria, -S-

I have to respectfully suggest that your panic is unwarranted. First, despite what they are teaching in Biology??? today, an ice age is not going to –SNAP- show up. If it were true that an ice age is coming, it may take thousands of years. Also, the Earth is by no means overpopulated. This is more Liberal indoctrination taught in the schools.

Everyone is missing the poi... (Below threshold)

Everyone is missing the point on 'global warming'. Scotty is correct - there's a lot of data on either side of the debate, and almost all models fail because the earth's climate is simply too complex for our current computing technology and financial allocations to handle. This does not, however, dispute or disprove the principles of entropy, which SHOULD be at the heart of any analysis of 'global warming'. The point is this: Burning fossil fuels and emitting the amount of warming gases into the environment that we (particularly North Americans) do is not sustainable, and it throws even more variables into the already complex global climate equation. Acting without considering the consequences of those actions is pure and simple stupidity.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy